Stayart is a middle-aged woman who describes herself on her Tumblr page as the “CFO and Director of Business Development for Stayart Law Offices.” For years now, her name has popped up alongside listings for drugs such as Cialis and links to websites hosting malware in search results on various search engines (including Alta Vista, Yahoo, and even AdultFriendFinder) as an apparent result of search engine optimization algorithms and auto-complete. As a result, she’s pursued lawsuits against these companies, arguing that they have violated her right to privacy by misappropriating her name and serving up ads or auto-suggesting search terms around her name.

So far she’s lost at every turn. Her latest case is against Google, and it argues that her name has been misappropriated because searching for "Bev Stayart" on the search engine brings up "Bev Stayart Levitra" in Google's auto-suggest algorithm. (Levitra is an erectile dysfunction drug.)

On Wednesday, however, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed her yet another loss in her lawsuit against Google, upholding a decision made by a district court in 2011. In the appellate case, Stayart argued that her rights under Wisconsin’s right to privacy laws had been violated under §995.50(2)(b).

“The use, for advertising purposes or for purposes of trade, of the name, portrait or picture of any living person, without having first obtained the written consent of the person or, if the person is a minor, of his or her parent or guardian” constitutes an invasion of privacy, the law states.

But the Court disagreed.

"Stayart has not articulated a set of facts that can plausibly lead to relief under Wisconsin's misappropriation laws,” the court wrote (PDF).

In fact, the court cited her own previous case against Yahoo, in which that court found that there had to be a “substantial rather than an incidental connection between the use and the defendant’s commercial purpose.”

Stayart did not respond immediately to our request for comment.

Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, wrote about Stayart’s case back in 2011, saying:

The court couches the discussion in fairly turgid legal prose, but the message is clear: Bev Stayart's claims substantially overread the law, and she hasn't suffered any damage the court is going to recognize. Most plaintiffs would get the hint and cut their losses.

Among other consequences of her litigation campaign, Bev Stayart's litigation campaign has irrevocably changed the search results on her name. Instead of associating her with sexual dysfunction drugs, her search results forevermore will be associated with unmeritorious litigation. Thus, I still fail to understand why these lawsuits aren't fundamentally counterproductive to her apparent goal of improving her online reputation.

UPDATE 6:35pm: Stayart called Ars back, and said that she vehemently disagrees with the decision, and is considering appealing the case to the United States Supreme Court, as well as other suits. However, she noted that her counsel (also, her husband) will make those decisions.

"I feel that the decision was economically-driven, in favor of Google and against the rights of the individual," she told Ars, adding that the court seemed to only be representing the interests of the "1 percent."

So out of curiosity, has she ever figured out why these spam/malware sites chose to use her name? It is presumably some sort of SEO. Did they just spew huge lists of names into the HTML source, and her name just happened to not be associated with enough other content on the internet to drown out the garbage sites? Or is there some other reason that her name in particular became associated with these sites?

Also, since almost all of the articles will mention what she had been linked to previously, they will only reinforce the links in the engines. Not terribly smart to keep tilting at that particular windmill.

Ha, I like Eric's response. Translation: the only person ruining your reputation is yourself, lady.

I am kind of curious how her name got associated with those drugs in the first place, and/or how she can show that that name is even referring to her, as I don't expect anyone would give a... cent... to connect her name with the product deliberately. I would expect she isn't the only Beverly Stayart in the world, so unless she has some reason to suspect that refers to her specifically, she doesn't seem to have a case at all (in my not-at-all-a-lawyer-and-thank-goodness-for-that opinion).

"her name has popped up alongside listings for drugs such as Cialis and links to websites hosting malware in search results on various search engines... as an apparent result of search engine optimization algorithms and auto-complete."

Why? Was it her failed attempts at search engine optimization, errors in the algorithms, hanky panky on the other sites, or what?

I gotta admit I'd be pissed too if AdultFriendFinder.com was using my name and picture for advertising.

I think I must have hit my head or something - with each passing day I enjoy reading about hilariously meretricious lawsuits more and more. It's like a circus, except with better costumes and more Latin!

"her name has popped up alongside listings for drugs such as Cialis and links to websites hosting malware in search results on various search engines... as an apparent result of search engine optimization algorithms and auto-complete."

Why? Was it her failed attempts at search engine optimization, errors in the algorithms, hanky panky on the other sites, or what?

I gotta admit I'd be pissed too if AdultFriendFinder.com was using my name and picture for advertising.

Regardless of the original reason (another person with the same name could have been associated), it is now associated because of her lawsuits. Because now every article out there on her is mentioning her being tied to said drugs, websites, etc.

All she has accomplished is cement her name's association, though perhaps adding in an association with "unmeritous litigation" as Eric Goldman said.

Also, I don't think any claims have been made that any of her personally identifying information was used in any advertising. Merely, her name appears to have been associated with the names of various drugs, and those search engines happened to serve advertisements. They weren't using her picture, and they certainly weren't using her name for advertisements either.

If I go and do a google search for myself, I'll get adds too. They aren't related to me, and they certainly aren't using me, it just so happens that my name is associated with a particular type of food. I can do a search in hundreds of places and get a result, but that doesn't mean they were using me for the advertising, or that they should be accountable for my name sharing meaning with food.

- I still don't get how the alleged associations with her name started in the first place.- Writing an entire article on this subject without mentioning the Streisand Effect is impressive.- I had never heard of levitra before she started suing. Sheltered upbringing, I guess.

Also, I don't think any claims have been made that any of her personally identifying information was used in any advertising. Merely, her name appears to have been associated with the names of various drugs, and those search engines happened to serve advertisements. They weren't using her picture, and they certainly weren't using her name for advertisements either.

If that's the case, then I'm in 100% agreement that she doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. My point was more that the article is unclear exactly what was happening or why her name was associated with these ads and the links provided didn't have details either.

“The use, for advertising purposes or for purposes of trade, of the name, portrait or picture of any living person, without having first obtained the written consent of the person or, if the person is a minor, of his or her parent or guardian” constitutes an invasion of privacy, the law states.

But the Court disagreed.

I'm confused, is that a direct quote of the law?

It seems like:

* google did use her name for advertising purposes (they show her name on a page with ads on it) * google does not have written consent to use her name

Which part of the law did the court disagree with?

Google is not using her name. Her name happens to be associated with products that Google is advertising. If my name was Ben Gay, am I eligible for Royalties from Bengay, or from Google for advertising the said product?

Lordy, think about that poor girl Melissa King (Miss Teen Delaware) and what she's most likely going to be associated with for the rest of her life. Actually with good reason, but the facepalmage in that situation is just beyond words.

Also, I don't think any claims have been made that any of her personally identifying information was used in any advertising. Merely, her name appears to have been associated with the names of various drugs, and those search engines happened to serve advertisements. They weren't using her picture, and they certainly weren't using her name for advertisements either.

If that's the case, then I'm in 100% agreement that she doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. My point was more that the article is unclear exactly what was happening or why her name was associated with these ads and the links provided didn't have details either.

I know. It doesn't state one way or the other, but unfortunately it is hard to tell now. Her name definitely is associated now because of the lawsuits, so it is difficult to tell how this got started.

I'm semi-sympathetic to the situation, not so much the method of dealing with it.

I share a name with a porn star, and her name dominated google searches for my name in the early 00s. Nowadays it's not the case, but during that time I'd like to think that I was slightly more impervious to google-stalking than I am today. For, uh, reasons. With the side effect of all searches on me being NSFW.

That actually sounds plausible. And as much as this is kind of humorous in one sense, given the products, it's terribly frightening in another. Basically, it says that if Google can claim "it wasn't THIS Bev Stayart" or whatever, they can do anything they want with their suggestions.

I'll stretch it a little, but just go with me: let's say you create a new store called "awesome shop". Shop in german can be translated "Laden". Awesome may soundex like Osama. Now, every time someone in germany types in "Awesome Shop", google autocomplete suggests "Osama bin Laden" or "al qaeda". Good luck selling anything from that store!

It's funny/frivolous/Streisand until it happens to YOU. Then it's no laughing matter. Think about it - her only avenue of recourse has been denied - she'll be associated with Cialias/Levitra (through no fault of her own) for the rest of her life, unless she changes her name. That's not something we should readily allow, IMHO.

That actually sounds plausible. And as much as this is kind of humorous in one sense, given the products, it's terribly frightening in another. Basically, it says that if Google can claim "it wasn't THIS Bev Stayart" or whatever, they can do anything they want with their suggestions.

I'll stretch it a little, but just go with me: let's say you create a new store called "awesome shop". Shop in german can be translated "Laden". Awesome may soundex like Osama. Now, every time someone in germany types in "Awesome Shop", google autocomplete suggests "Osama bin Laden" or "al qaeda". Good luck selling anything from that store!

It's funny/frivolous/Streisand until it happens to YOU. Then it's no laughing matter. Think about it - her only avenue of recourse has been denied - she'll be associated with Cialias/Levitra (through no fault of her own) for the rest of her life, unless she changes her name. That's not something we should readily allow, IMHO.

Unfortunately, where before it may have simply changed over time, now that she has filed suit, it is rather irrevocably tied, as court records are public domain. Whether unfortunate or not, and whether the original linkage was justified or not, now her actions have sealed the association. So you (now) can't really say through no fault of her own.

But that still doesn't make a difference. Unfortunately, our names are most likely not unique, and neither is the public domain. To suggest otherwise is substantially selfish. This brings to mind the unfortunate case of the gentleman with the last name of Zuckerberg who was denied all sorts of accounts because his name happened to be the same as someone famous. His name will be forever associated with the works of another, but to claim any ownership over those results is substantially selfish and unreasonable. He is not the same man, but a search of the public domain cannot dissociate him from another or the works of another. (Or, in my case, from food. :-) )

Google might be a bit hypocritical *in general* on this issue. the value of autocomplete is that it's supposed to accurately predict one's search. if it has been abused in some way, or if it's inaccurate, Google should want to correct that.

I'm not saying that a lawsuit is the best recourse, but it would be inappropriate for Google to pretend that they don't bear some responsibility--particularly when they agree to alter autocomplete results in some cases.

"Simply put, Google's position is this: In response to pressure from a powerful lobby, the company will block search terms and hits, forcing undesirable results lower on their list of links. But when it comes to individual people, Google unscrupulously links users to websites that violate their personal rights."

When I search for "how does google blow" I don't get their management's names, which, Google can do now that the Courts have ruled Corporations have "Free-Speech" rights, and Google can return whatever -the- f search results it wants. Answers to how Google sucks no longer have to return sites that go into detail on how they suck.

I'm confused by Google. On one hand they invade personal privacy of everyone that comes close to a google device, or bit of software, and on the other hand the evade any contribution to the commonwealth that might protect individual citizen rights. or iRights.

They should pick one or the other evil approaches for their anti-social monopoly, not both. 2 x evil != good.

This has nothing to do with Google or anyone else trying to make money by using her name. I've seen this happen with plenty of websites that have been infected with malware. Usually this is the result of a code injection somewhere on a page that redirects search engine robots to a page crafted for SEO specifically to sell drugs. Given how SEO operates, your site/name gets associated with the keywords. Some of the websites we host have fallen victim to this in the past. Luckily, it's just a matter of fixing the bad page and instructing the engines to crawl your site again. Odd how there is no mention of this at all. I guess that isn't as catchy as going on a warpath against big corporations.

"I feel that the decision was economically-driven, in favor of Google and against the rights of the individual," she told Ars, adding that the court seemed to only be representing the interests of the "1 percent."

Yea, because Wisconsin courts are kowtowing to a corporation without any significant interest here.

"Simply put, Google's position is this: In response to pressure from a powerful lobby, the company will block search terms and hits, forcing undesirable results lower on their list of links. But when it comes to individual people, Google unscrupulously links users to websites that violate their personal rights."

Yes. Clearly not hand checking billions of results for odd interactions is a violation of personal rights. It is pretty much up there with publishing her contacts list and a daily timetable of her whereabouts.

So is the answer to finding your name associated with something you really don't like just to suck it up?

If you raise it, you reinforce it. If you leave it, nothing changes.

Can't Google have a 'reset connections' tool that people can request they use to zero out this sort of thing? I don't think a legal case is the answer, but I do think that Google should be able to handle this.

I gotta admit I'd be pissed too if AdultFriendFinder.com was using my name and picture for advertising.

That has nothing to do with the case whatsoever.

In this particular case, no, but I do remember when I was working customer service for a hosting company and a customer called in frantic because she was a legal professional and happened to share a name with a porn star who happened to reside in the same major city. After nearly spewing Diet Coke across the screen when she asked us to try and SEO her website to beat out a porn star, I offered her the best advice I could think of under the circumstances:

"I feel that the decision was economically-driven, in favor of Google and against the rights of the individual," she told Ars, adding that the court seemed to only be representing the interests of the "1 percent."

I feel that her decision might be economically-driven as well, especially having a lawyer for a spouse.

And judging by her resumé, and her hubby's, she's probably on the upper rungs of the 99% she's claiming as her peers.